Calling universal health care "socialist" is for stupid people. The market is already there. All of the US plans so far are just modifications to a free-market system. There are very few Americans employed by the US government in the health care field. It is virtually ALL free market.

Well. We can certainly see who slept through sixth grade.

We live in a time when "Stop shooting our Kids" is considered a liberal talking point.

Ronald Reagan was surrounded by armed Secret Service agents when he was shot. Perhaps if there had been an armed math teacher.....

Drlee wrote:Calling universal health care "socialist" is for stupid people. The market is already there. All of the US plans so far are just modifications to a free-market system. There are very few Americans employed by the US government in the health care field. It is virtually ALL free market.

Well. We can certainly see who slept through sixth grade.

Yes forcing people to buy into a government subsidized system is in no way socialism. Forcing companies to pay to support peoples healthcare is not socialism . You are right perhaps, its not all out socialism but they are socialist lite policies or steps towards it. All these plans have intent of creating single payer system, Obama and the left admitted as such. Communists always talked about step by step easing into it.

First you create a whole class of people being directly paid and fed by the government.Then you slowly chip away at whole industries by opening up free trade while at same time creating suffocating restrictions on your own industries. Then you offer more and more handouts until the system cannot support itself anymore, and then you blame that system for the collapse.... then you fucking cock sucking leftist criminals waltz in.

Didn't Obama pardon a bunch of drug dealers for no clear reason, some of whom went out and killed people afterwards? And I won't bother to bring up Bill's pardons.

My term as President ended recently, I was pretty bummed about it. But I think the new president was probably more happy to become President than I am sad to lose it. The total happiness in the world increased. So, whatever.

One Degree wrote:Brilliant. Just say it was racist and that justifies everything. Pathetic.

This thing where you automatically defend everyone accused of racism, while simultaneously accusing the accuser of being close-minded, rests on the assumption that the person being accused is not actually racist.

Now, either you are always right, in which case racism does not actually exist, or you end up defending racists because sometimes people accused of racism are actually racist.

This is one of those latter cases.

-----------------

Oxymoron wrote:Yes forcing people to buy into a government subsidized system is in no way socialism. Forcing companies to pay to support peoples healthcare is not socialism . You are right perhaps, its not all out socialism but they are socialist lite policies or steps towards it. All these plans have intent of creating single payer system, Obama and the left admitted as such. Communists always talked about step by step easing into it.....

Oxymoron wrote:Yes forcing people to buy into a government subsidized system is in no way socialism. Forcing companies to pay to support peoples healthcare is not socialism . You are right perhaps, its not all out socialism but they are socialist lite policies or steps towards it. All these plans have intent of creating single payer system, Obama and the left admitted as such. Communists always talked about step by step easing into it.

First you create a whole class of people being directly paid and fed by the government.Then you slowly chip away at whole industries by opening up free trade while at same time creating suffocating restrictions on your own industries. Then you offer more and more handouts until the system cannot support itself anymore, and then you blame that system for the collapse.... then you fucking cock sucking leftist criminals waltz in.

So basically we’ve had socialism since….what 1968 or so? Wow. If nothing else, you have to admire them taking a 50+ year plan and executing it perfectly!! Either that or you’re completely full of shit. I’m guessing door number 2.

mikema63 wrote:That's literally what he was convicted for in federal court.

All the illegal immigrants just happened to be Latino. Do you really expect the sheriff Deputies to arrest an equal number of white people to look fair?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio was only convicted of a misdemeanor that was punishable up to 6 months imprisonment. The Judge should have recused herself in the first place, because her relative started the original lawsuit against the Sheriff. Also, Arpaio was refused a jury trial. The conviction would have been overturned on appeal anyway, because due process were not followed by the judge.

Apparently President Trump believed Sheriff Apaio was convicted of doing his job as he asked the crowd recently at his appearance in Arizona. The crowd agreed and the President said, “I’ll make a prediction. I think he’s going to be just fine, OK?" It appears that it was at that time that the President decided to end this injustice to this 85 year old patriot before he was sentenced, because it became clear that this was just a political hit job because of disagreements on how to handle illegal immigration.

This could have also been a way for the President to make a political statement on how he believed illegal immigration should be handled and a statement to judges that used political beliefs to decide court cases.

4cal wrote:So basically we’ve had socialism since….what 1968 or so? Wow. If nothing else, you have to admire them taking a 50+ year plan and executing it perfectly!! Either that or you’re completely full of shit. I’m guessing door number 2.

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans to resume his bid to get a federal judge disqualified from a racial profiling case even though the lawman has been out of office for more than two months.

An Arpaio attorney said in court papers Friday that his client intends to keep pursuing his recusal request against U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, who ruled in 2013 that sheriff’s officers had profiled Latinos and last year recommended a criminal contempt-of-court charge against Arpaio for defying an order to stop his immigration patrols.

The contempt case is believed to have contributed to Arpaio’s crushing defeat in the November election against Paul Penzone after 24 years in office.

Arpaio made the recusal request the day after he was officially charged with misdemeanor contempt-of-court.

His attorneys argue the judge had improper private conversations with an official hired to monitor the sheriff’s office on behalf of the court, saying the encounters included discussions about whether the sheriff’s office had committed contempt of court. They said ethics rules for federal judges prohibit such conversations.

It’s the second time Arpaio has tried to get Snow to disqualify from the case.

The racial profiling case was initially assigned to former U.S. District Court Judge Mary Murguia, before she joined the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. When Arpaio's attorneys learned Murguia’s twin sister, Janet, was the head of the Latino civil rights organization, National Council de la Raza, he argued the judge’s sister has “ideological, political, social and activist interests” in the lawsuit.

In her ruling, Murguia acknowledged National Council de la Raza had posted articles on its website that disparaged Arpaio and accused the sheriff’s office of racial profiling.

Murguia decided to recuse herself, writing that, “No Court should tolerate even the slightest chance that its continued participation in a high profile lawsuit could taint the public’s perception of the fairness of the outcome.”

Later a question arose whether Snow should recuse himself because his brother-in-law works for the law firm, Covington & Burling, which represents plaintiffs in the suit along with the ACLU.

The judge rejected the first attempt in July 2015 when the sheriff alleged that questions by the judge about secret investigations conducted by Arpaio created an appearance of judicial bias.

Earlier in the profiling case, Arpaio succeeded in getting another federal judge to recuse herself from the case after his lawyers questioned her impartiality.

the MCSO placed an "MCSO ICE Hold" against U.S. citizen Israel Correa while he was in custody on the bogus charge of not producing a valid driver's license.

Why bogus? According to the incident report, obtained from MCSO flack Paul Chagolla, Correa was stopped about 10 p.m. January 18 because he was driving without his headlights on. The MCSO actually arrested Correa for failure to show ID, even though the report written by deputy C.A. Rangel notes Correa eventually produced a valid Arizona driver's license, just not quickly enough to satisfy Rangel.

Correa wasn't ticketed for driving sans headlights. Instead, he was ticketed for not showing ID, which he, in fact, produced. For not having insurance, which he has. And for not having his registration in the vehicle, though MCSO ran the car's plate, and found the registration was legit.

MCSO confiscated Correa's valid state driver's license, and on Rangel's report is Correa's valid Social Security number. So, why did deputies place an immigration hold on him?

Sheriff Arapio was found guilty of racial profiling in the eyes of public opinion with the help of pro illegal alien advocacy groups. Looks like Phoenix is well on its way to becoming another sanctuary city for illegal aliens thanks in large part to our ACLU.

The controversial agreement that authorized Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies to act as federal immigration agents on the streets appears to have ended. The jail-screening effort helped officials catch nearly 30,000 illegal immigrants since the program began in February 2007, but it was the street-level enforcement that caused the most controversy.

Without an agreement that authorizes immigration screenings on the street, deputies will need probable cause to detain a suspected illegal immigrant until federal agents can determine the suspect's immigration status.

The Sheriff's Office had been operating under an umbrella agreement that authorized the street-level enforcement and jail operations, but U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that all the contracts with local law-enforcement agencies were under review. Federal officials have come under increasing pressure from civil-rights, labor, religious and pro-immigrant groups to end the program, known as 287(g), because of fears of racial profiling.

Sheriff's deputies will still enforce the state's human-smuggling law, which allows illegal immigrants to be charged as co-conspirators in their own smuggling, but a conviction requires proving clear links to some sort of smuggling activity, said Dan Pochoda, Arizona ACLU legal director.

Analysis of arrest records from 10 of the sheriff's crime-suppression operations showed that more than half the illegal immigrants arrested during the sweeps were held on federal immigration violations and hadn't committed another crime.

ICE agents told sheriff's deputies that they could not arrest suspected illegal immigrants who met that criteria and instead had to free them after giving them a "notice to appear" at ICE for processing.

A new Arizona sheriff has dissolved a policy that once helped the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement keep immigrants behind bars and sparked civil rights woes against his predecessor.

Penzone said that going forward, if ICE wants to keep immigrants in the state's most populous county in custody, they will be required to "take a more aggressive position" and obtain an arrest warrant meriting the additional time in custody.

"MCSO has implemented a policy which will undoubtedly result in dangerous criminal aliens being released to the street to re-victimize the innocent citizens of that community," ICE spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe said in a statement. “Additionally, the new policy puts ICE officers at a higher risk as more fugitive operations teams will need to arrest criminal aliens outside of the secure confines of the county jail."

The legal trouble that may have sparked the new rule may have been a federal case lodged against outgoing Sheriff Joe Arpaio in December. He lost his reelection bid to his Democratic opponent, Penzone, in November.

President Trump has been clear in affirming the critical mission of DHS in protecting the nation and directed the Department to focus on removing illegal aliens who have violated our immigration laws, with a specific focus on those who pose a threat to public safety, have been charged with criminal offenses, have committed immigration violations or have been deported and re-entered the country illegally.

4cal wrote:[quote=“Oxymoron"]We have been heading in leftist direction since the traitor FDR.

And the alternative is what? Let the folks in Texas fend for themselves during the catastrophic flooding to prevent some sort of appearance that we should give a shit about our fellow countrymen?[/quote]

What does helping flood victims have to do with political beliefs? What Houston demonstrates is the idiocy of housing so many people in a small geographic area. Anyone who has driven in Houston on a normal day knows an evacuation would have been an even greater disaster.Smart population distribution is needed to prevent these disasters.

I dream of the United Citystates of Earth, where each Citystate has a standardized border such as one whole degree of Latitude by one whole degree of Longitude.

One Degree wrote:What does helping flood victims have to do with political beliefs? :?: What Houston demonstrates is the idiocy of housing so many people in a small geographic area. Anyone who has driven in Houston on a normal day knows an evacuation would have been an even greater disaster.Smart population distribution is needed to prevent these disasters.

Texas is mostly Republican, but Houston, Texas is headed by a black Democratic Mayor and black congress woman with the strange name of Sheila Jackson Lee. Doesn't her name remind anyone of the so-called racist Confederate General Robert E. Lee and Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. How is she allowed to keep such racist names?